William Kelly is a former police lieutenant. Kelly was fired by the Norfolk, Virginia, police after making an anonymous donation to a defense fund. Kelly was fired by the Norfolk police department after hackers outed what he wanted to be a donation.
It makes sense that Kelly would want to keep his job. The consequences of giving into an electronic mob are brought up. Kelly lost his job because of a donation. Thanks for your courage. Keep your head up. You've done nothing wrong.
The jury found Rittenhouse not guilty. Should the police have taken action against the internet mob? They should have taken it as a difference of opinion.
It's easy to talk about someone else's firing. What happens when your employee disagrees with you? What happens when something happens that is hated by the social network?
You should never fire an employee without a full investigation, no matter what happens on the internet. The whole story is never shown in the brief video clip or the short message board. If an employee came to you with a complaint of discrimination, you would investigate.
You need to do the same thing in the case of negative internet fame. A negative video accusing a manager of racism went viral, leading to her firing. The person making the video had a history of stealing food from the restaurant, but it turned out that she was not racist. She was offered the job back.
It would have been better to investigate before the end. You don't want to remove an employee because of a mistake.
More than twenty percent of Americans are on the social networking site. Almost 80 percent of people don't log on at all. A majority of users are male, and 92 percent of the messages come from people who are politically left leaning.
It's unlikely that most of your customers even know about the employee getting trashed on the social networking site. If you are benefiting your business or appeasing the small internet mob, then you should not fire an employee.
If an employee stood on a street corner and yelled racial epithets, and only you saw him, you would probably fire him. That's not the person you want around. In his case, he didn't say anything at all. The donation and statement were uncovered by hackers.
Should the response be different if he had personally said it to someone?
If you don't want to fire someone for saying it in the break room or at a family picnic, you shouldn't fire them for posting it on Facebook or donating money.
I'd challenge you to come up with someone's name from that time, even if you can find out that they were victims of an internet mob attack.
It will go away, even though it may seem horrible and damaging to your company. Can you name the CEO who wrote an op-ed saying people who don't go back to the office aren't engaged in their work? That was six months ago. Two years ago, the woman who criticized a job candidate's swimming suit made her post.
The mob moves on even if you can find them on the internet. There will always be a new cause to champion and the next person to attack.
Public employees have more free speech rights than private employees. Maybe you would have fired him. Maybe you should rehir him. It's important to think through and balance your long-term business goals when making a decision.
